Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach • Hacker News Board

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#481

Post by rcoveson » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 6:14 PM UTC

tambourine_man wrote: post #464

DoctorOW wrote: post #22

> Some argue that we should terminate these services to content we find reprehensible so that others can launch attacks to knock it offline. That is the equivalent argument in the physical world that the fire department shouldn't respond to fires in the homes of people who do not possess sufficient moral character. > For instance, when a site that opposed LGBTQ+ rights signed up for a paid version of DDoS mitigation…

Cloudflare is not a public service, the comparison with firefighters is not apt. I’ve been seeing this confusion more and more recently, probably because of the size and omnipresence of corporations. I don’t know if this confusion is deliberate to justify certain acts or simply ignorance, but the distinction has to be emphasized. Corporations and public services are completely different beasts, with different legisla…

There are ways in which they are "completely different beasts" and ways in which they are similar.

In that they are both organizations made up of human beings providing important services to the general public, they are the similar. I think that's the similarity that was being emphasized by the analogy.

The analogy still works if you imagine private firefighters (the kind you might contract for a farming operation) instead of public firefighters.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#482

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 6:14 PM UTC

Mindwipe wrote: post #404

seneca wrote: post #43

It's interesting watching the responses roll in here. What CF is laying out here was essentially the standard viewpoint of western society until something like 10 years ago. "I disagree with what you say, but I'll protect your right to say it" is a basic tenant of liberalism. If you find that shocking, you should examine why that is.

Except they're not, because they shut down Switter.

[deleted]

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#483

Post by throwawayacc2 » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 6:15 PM UTC

SrslyJosh wrote: post #258

throwawayacc2 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

If you believed that KF was performing "investigative journalism", you wouldn't be posting this with a throwaway.

Perhaps political dissidents in the USSR should have been more open with their criticisms as well :)

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#484

Post by sieabahlpark » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 6:16 PM UTC

FrecklySunbeam wrote: post #354

sieabahlpark wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not anything I haven't read on Twitter about priests. Seriously, that's what everyone is upset about?

He’s talking about transgender people, not priests

That's my point, Twitter has the same content about priests. What's the big deal, no one is in a tizzy about Twitter hosting that content.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#485

Post by bell-cot » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 6:18 PM UTC

There must be a lot of times when Cloudflare's leaders wish that they were a janitorial supply company. Or a roofing firm. Or a ball bearings manufacturer. Or anything where there was ~zero public expectation that they would monitor and be "held responsible" for the business models, behaviors, and morals of the millions of people and organizations using their products & services.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#486

Post by DoctorOW » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 6:18 PM UTC

splitrocket wrote: post #468

tambourine_man wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cloudflare is not a public service, the comparison with firefighters is not apt. I’ve been seeing this confusion more and more recently, probably because of the size and omnipresence of corporations. I don’t know if this confusion is deliberate to justify certain acts or simply ignorance, but the distinction has to be emphasized. Corporations and public services are completely different beasts, with different legisla…

100% concur. Illinois has to allow the Nazis to march: they are the government. You don't have to allow nazis into your private party, nor do you have to publish their books. You, as an individual, and corporations as entities are emphatically not the government.

But see this is where I get tripped up. I don't think laws should dictate morality. So barring the fact that it's the way the law is written in the United States. Why is Illinois morally required to protect speech and Cloudflare, who almost certainly has far greater control (theoretically) over speech not?

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#487

Post by sieabahlpark » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 6:19 PM UTC

FrecklySunbeam wrote: post #356

squabbles wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keffals brags about sending hrt to minors without their parent's knowledge.

Quoted post unavailable.

No post body was provided.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#488

Post by Ticklee » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 6:21 PM UTC

peppermint_tea wrote: post #474

wow, so many comments that leads nowhere (law/technical/etc)... what about a counterprotest? Like bigots voicing their opinions on a street corner would attract. I assume everyone here have a VPN... would be fun to post some trans positive messages on their rotten kiwi farm.

Well the actual reason is of course that the people involved with this movement do not want their threads read. It shines a light on everything shady, dishonest and bad they have done, social media influencers want to appear holy as a saint in front of their audience as it increases their influence, so telling your entire audience to engage with a thread that makes you look like a horrible person is a bad move.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#489

Post by sschueller » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 6:21 PM UTC

tambourine_man wrote: post #464

DoctorOW wrote: post #22

> Some argue that we should terminate these services to content we find reprehensible so that others can launch attacks to knock it offline. That is the equivalent argument in the physical world that the fire department shouldn't respond to fires in the homes of people who do not possess sufficient moral character. > For instance, when a site that opposed LGBTQ+ rights signed up for a paid version of DDoS mitigation…

Cloudflare is not a public service, the comparison with firefighters is not apt. I’ve been seeing this confusion more and more recently, probably because of the size and omnipresence of corporations. I don’t know if this confusion is deliberate to justify certain acts or simply ignorance, but the distinction has to be emphasized. Corporations and public services are completely different beasts, with different legisla…

If a cooperation becomes a de-facto monopoly the rules that apply need to change. If there is no competition you can go to and there is no way around it then the government has to step in.

Re: Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach

#490

Post by sieabahlpark » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 6:23 PM UTC

phillipcarter wrote: post #385

dxuh wrote: post #208

Large corporations policing free speech is a horrible trend that often enough goes absolutely wrong and the only way to prevent censoring content inappropriately is to not censor anything at all. There are laws and courts that judge over what content should stay online and it should stay their responsibility. If we give that up, we replace democracy with a technocracy, that already showed us plenty of times is not so…

> Large corporations policing free speech Let me stop you right there. This is not a free speech issue. Please be precise with your terminology.

It's an American company hosting content for an American. The laws of America apply.